Christianity and Vaisnavism

[theist]

<table bgcolor="white" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="700"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top">

</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="800">

 

 

 

Christianity and Vaisnavism

 

BY: HAREKRSNA.COM

 

 

<center>

</center>

 

Jul 01, CANADA (SUN) — A three-part comparison of Vaisnava and Christian devotional principles.

 

Because Christianity and Vaisnavism are both personalist philosophies, they are quite similar in nature. The Vedas teach that the son is non-different from the father and similarly, Christian theology teaches that Christ, the son of God, is also God. While Christ says "I am the son of God", He never says, "I am God." This is in agreement with the acintya-bhedabheda-tattva philosophy given by Lord Caitanya, that the Lord, due to his inconceivable potencies, is simultaneously one and different. Christianity is a form of Vaisnavism because God is recognized, and Christians practice bhakti-yoga when they worship Jesus Christ because they are accepting him as the son of God and are therefore accepting God. Christ preached that the topmost relationship is a direct, personal loving relationship with the Lord.

 

Like the Vaisnavas, Christ was always compassionate and anxious to save humanity from suffering. Christians believe that through His crucifixion, Jesus Christ assimilated all the sinful activities of the world's people. One of the most significant differences between Christianity and Vaisnavism is that Christianity does not accept the Vedic conclusion on reincarnation, or transmigration of the soul. Christian doctrine holds that there is heaven and hell (akin to the divine and demoniac natures), but Christianity teaches that upon death of the body, the spirit soul does not return to a new earthly body. If, during his lifetime, the individual comes into relationship with God the Father through Christ the Son, then all sins are forgiven and the individual goes to Heaven. There is a process of confession and atonement, and atonement is required and must be undergone according to the gravity of one's sinful acts. According to the Vedic conclusion, however, everyone is responsible for his own sinful activities. While the spiritual master may mitigate a disciple's sins, if one continues to commit sinful acts he will reap the reaction, or karmic effect, in this lifetime or in future lifetimes.

 

 

 

Christ consciousness is also essentially Krsna consciousness, but at present people do not follow the rules and regulations of Christianity (the commandments of Jesus Christ), consequently they do not come to the standard of God consciousness. For example, the Bible contains the commandment "Thou shall not kill," but Christians have built the world's best slaughterhouses. This is another of the most significant practical differences between Christians, who encourage killing other living entities for food, and Vaisnavas, who follow strict standards of vegetarianism.

 

 

 

<center>

Jesus Christ Was a Guru

</center>

The spiritual leader of the Hare Krsna movement here recognizes Lord Jesus Christ as "the son of God, the representative of God... our guru... our spiritual master," yet he has some sharp words for those who currently claim to be Christ's followers..."

 

 

"The Srimad-Bhagavatam states that any bona fide preacher of God consciousness must have the qualities of titiksa (tolerance) and karuna (compassion). In the character of Lord Jesus Christ we find both these qualities. He was so tolerant that even while he was being crucified, he didn't condemn anyone. And he was so compassionate that he prayed to God to forgive the very persons who were trying to kill him. (Of course, they could not actually kill him. But they were thinking that he could be killed, so they were committing a great offense.) As Christ was being crucified he prayed, "Father, forgive them. They know not what they are doing."

 

A preacher of God consciousness is a friend to all living beings. Lord Jesus Christ exemplified this by teaching, "Thou shalt not kill." But the Christians like to misinterpret this instruction. They think the animals have no soul, and therefore they think they can freely kill billions of innocent animals in the slaughterhouses. So although there are many persons who profess to be Christians, it would be very difficult to find one who strictly follows the instructions of Lord Jesus Christ.

 

A Vaisnava is unhappy to see the suffering of others. Therefore, Lord Jesus Christ agreed to be crucified--to free others from their suffering. But his followers are so unfaithful that they have decided, "Let Christ suffer for us, and we'll go on committing sin." They love Christ so much that they think, "My dear Christ, we are very weak. We cannot give up our sinful activities. So you please suffer for us."

 

Jesus Christ taught, "Thou shalt not kill." But his followers have now decided, "Let us kill anyway," and they open big, modern, scientific slaughterhouses. "If there is any sin, Christ will suffer for us." This is a most abominable conclusion.

 

Christ can take the sufferings for the previous sins of his devotees. But first they have to be sane: "Why should I put Jesus Christ into suffering for my sins? Let me stop my sinful activities."

 

Suppose a man--the favorite son of his father--commits a murder. And suppose he thinks, "If there is any punishment coming, my father can suffer for me." Will the law allow it? When the murderer is arrested and says, "No, no. You can release me and arrest my father; I am his pet son," will the police officials comply with that fool's request? He committed the murder, but he thinks his father should suffer the punishment! Is that a sane proposal? "No. You have committed the murder; you must be hanged." Similarly, when you commit sinful activities, you must suffer--not Jesus Christ. This is God's law.

 

Jesus Christ was such a great personality--the son of God, the representative of God. He had no fault. Still, he was crucified. He wanted to deliver God consciousness, but in return they crucified him--they were so thankless. They could not appreciate his preaching. But we appreciate him and give him all honor as the representative of God.

 

Of course, the message that Christ preached was just according to his particular time, place, and country, and just suited for a particular group of people. But certainly he is the representative of God. Therefore we adore Lord Jesus Christ and offer our obeisances to him.

 

Once, in Melbourne, a group of Christian ministers came to visit me. They asked, "What is your idea of Jesus Christ?" I told them, "He is our guru. He is preaching God consciousness, so he is our spiritual master." The ministers very much appreciated that.

 

Actually, anyone who is preaching God's glories must be accepted as a guru. Jesus Christ is one such great personality. We should not think of him as an ordinary human being. The scriptures say that anyone who considers the spiritual master to be an ordinary man has a hellish mentality. If Jesus Christ were an ordinary man, then he could not have delivered God consciousness."

 

</td></tr></tbody></table>

[shvu]

And here we go - again.

 

Theist cannot go for more than a few weeks without finding fault with someone. Either the mayavadins or the scientists or the Hindus or as in this case Christians - people who do not know the teachings of Christ. So who knows the correct teachings of christ? The Hare Krishnas, of course. Just like they have a better idea of science than scientists.

 

There has got be a name for this syndrome. If not, then we should coin one...the theist syndrome, perhaps. it is like having a demon inside which has to periodically rear its ugly head and appease itself by criticising others.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

How is this article criticizing Christianity?

[Bishadi]

 

And here we go - again.

 

Theist cannot go for more than a few weeks without finding fault with someone.

Interesting..... should each upon the site be careful of everything the Mad man suggests?

 

 

Either the mayavadins or the scientists or the Hindus or as in this case Christians - people who do not know the teachings of Christ. So who knows the correct teachings of christ? The Hare Krishnas, of course. Just like they have a better idea of science than scientists.

wasn't it suggested that the 'west' stold the sciences from 'India'

 

 

There has got be a name for this syndrome. If not, then we should coin one...the theist syndrome, perhaps. it is like having a demon inside which has to periodically rear its ugly head and appease itself by criticising others

Maybe to see these an effort is being made to 'try' and understand but the pride of theist is to grand to actually ask for knowledge?

 

 

 

 

Jesus Christ taught, "Thou shalt not kill." But his followers have now decided, "Let us kill anyway," and they open big, modern, scientific slaughterhouses. "If there is any sin, Christ will suffer for us." This is a most abominable conclusion.

 

Are we all to assume that nature lies as to what is 'good' for the nourishment of even the species of man?

 

It seems if mankind was more like the beasts; at least they don't lie about what is good and bad; they just do, for life!

 

PS

 

What was modern in the first century CE?

 

maybe bathing?

[Kulapavana]

 

So who knows the correct teachings of christ? The Hare Krishnas, of course. Just like they have a better idea of science than scientists.

 

 

what I find really strange is that these people heap praises on Christianity and go out of their way to bridge the gaps between themselves and Christians, yet they staunchly rebuke their closest cousins, like the Shivaites or thaditional Hindus, deriding their beliefs and philosophy...

[matarisvan]

 

How is this article criticizing Christianity?

 

Its not? I thought there was something about slaughterhouses which appears to be criticism.

 

But iIf it is not criticism why do you think our "broad minded" theist started this thread?

[cbrahma]

 

Its not? I thought there was something about slaughterhouses which appears to be criticism.

 

But iIf it is not criticism why do you think our "broad minded" theist started this thread?

The article on the whole speaks very positively in praise of Jesus. That is enough.

[cbrahma]

 

what I find really strange is that these people heap praises on Christianity and go out of their way to bridge the gaps between themselves and Christians, yet they staunchly rebuke their closest cousins, like the Shivaites or thaditional Hindus, deriding their beliefs and philosophy...

Bhatkivinode Thakur was more attracted to Christian teaching than he was to Sankaracarya's teachings.

[theist]

 

The article on the whole speaks very positively in praise of Jesus. That is enough.

 

And that was the point of copying it to here. I thought it was a fine article and worthy of consideration. I would like to see the similarities between Western and Eastern mono-theistic devotion explored thoughtfully but I see the usual suspects have all jumped in to spoil the party. Dark Warrrior must be sleeping. Fortunately I have them all on ignore.

[cbrahma]

 

And that was the point of copying it to here. I thought it was a fine article and worthy of consideration. I would like to see the similarities between Western and Eastern mono-theistic devotion explored thoughtfully but I see the usual suspects have all jumped in to spoil the party. Dark Warrrior must be sleeping. Fortunately I have them all on ignore.

I think I will follow in your wise footsteps. It also occurs to me that Kula interpreted it positively because he thinks its ironic that 'these guys' are trying to reconcile Christianity and Vaisnavism yet distance themselves from their 'Indian cousins' , like the Shaivites etc...

[bija]

 

PS

 

What was modern in the first century CE?

 

maybe bathing? by bishadi

 

Cha-ching!!! Thx...thats very funny....luv a laugh:D

[bija]

It is very evident that many eastern traditions see the world as essentially a place to escape. Srila Prabhupada and others have called it a 'prison'. The buddha saw it as a place of suffering. Sankaracarya saw it as false. Eastern thought is often very transcendental and other worldy...Hare Krsna is definately transcendentalism...if anyone understands the deeper aspect of jaap and bhajan.

The form of christianity I appreciate (radical catholicism) is very different than such thinking. This world is the body of christ. It is not destined to degradation (kali yuga)...but is destined for christization...the omega factor. The fullfillment...the messiah. A place to fully relish and live in gratitude.

Ofcourse some Hare Krsna's may see Krsna present in this manifestation and live similar. This is what I mean by seeing Krsna everywhere Theist. Birth in this earth is a great gift...and consciousness as a human and being able to percieve that life in all is beautiful. As a devotee of Krsna, we also have been given one other great gift...in our heart as we walk in this world...we can see Krsna and his friends dancing, hiding, and playing...behind the veil.

 

This is a very different view of the world. (and also very different from many protestant strains of christianity). This God become flesh is unique...and wonderful. A sanction to live fully. Infact in my opinion, this unique aspect (god become flesh)...is a gift from the empowered incarnation himself...a gift from god...that shows the relevance of christianity...and proof that Jesus was a shaktayavesa avatara of the Supreme.

 

In this sense there is a huge difference between some practicioners.

 

"In The Divine Milieu, Teilhard the scientist takes us many centuries further in the life of Christ. He invites us to learn to see, as he does, not only the Christ of 2,000 years ago, but also the magnificent Being that the Risen Christ with his Total Body has developed into during two millennia. He also invites us to glimpse into Christ’s future, to identify the goal toward which that Total Body of Christ has been constantly evolving.

For Teilhard, Christ today is not just Jesus of Nazareth risen from the dead, but rather a huge, continually evolving Being as big as the universe. In this colossal, almost unimaginable Being each of us lives and develops in consciousness, like living cells in a huge organism. At various times, theologians have described this great Being as the Total Christ, the Cosmic Christ, the Whole Christ, the Universal Christ or the Mystical Body of Christ.

With the help of all the human sciences as well as the scriptures, Teilhard shows how we—the cells and members of the Body of Christ—can participate in and nurture the life of the Total Christ. He also shows, thanks to the continuing discoveries of science, how we can begin to glimpse where that great Being is headed and how we can help promote its fulfillment.

Teilhard’s spirituality identifies many ways we can help accomplish the Total Christ’s divine destiny. It is Christ’s divine task as well as ours to turn this fragmented world, through love of it in all of its visible and invisible dimensions, into one immense shining Being, the Body of Christ, glowing with divine energy. Christ the Lord, the head of this Body, has promised to be with us and guide us, from start to finish. He said, “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:20) At present, many of the cells of this Christ Body are unaware of their divine calling, unaware of how special they are in the eyes of God, and unconscious of the fact that they are already living their lives as part of this Cosmic Body. For Teilhard, this Cosmic Body is meant to become fully conscious of itself in every cell of its being in such a way that every cell is also conscious of the whole Body’s magnificent destiny. When this Christ Body realizes itself as the divine reality it has always been meant to be, that moment will be what Teilhard calls the Omega Point. (See Rev 1:8)"

Revelations 1.8 I am the Alpha and the Omega says the Lord God, who is, who was, and who is to come. The Almighty.

 

[bija]

http://www.teilhardforbeginners.com/

 

the above quotes are from this website

[theist]

 

I think I will follow in your wise footsteps. It also occurs to me that Kula interpreted it positively because he thinks its ironic that 'these guys' are trying to reconcile Christianity and Vaisnavism yet distance themselves from their 'Indian cousins' , like the Shaivites etc...

I don't have any Indian cousins that are somehow more family to me than any other soul. An atheist is also my brother just like the microbe or saint worthy of prostrations.

 

The religion "these guys" seem to advocate stems from a particular time and place in earth history and can be traced to a certain set of books which also have the same history.

 

But what attracts me to Krishna consciousness is the revelation that real religion consists of pure love of God and thus is not a product of space time or geographical location but is rather a constitutional part of the living being herself and thus intergral to her. IOW sanatan dharma is not a religion external to oneself but is actually the unfolding of the innermost, most intimate portion of oneself in relationship to the Supreme Self.

[bija]

 

IOW sanatan dharma is not a religion external to oneself but is actually the unfolding of the innermost, most intimate portion of oneself in relationship to the Supreme Self. by Theist

I feel similar in this regard. I have seen many devotees who were born christian, unable to integrate that experience in their present lives as Krsna bhakti yogis. That is their encounter and fine.

 

My first initiation was at the age of twelve, I chose it. The initiation was called confirmation...laying on of hands...from a disciplic succession which stems almost 2000 years (catholic church). The acceptance of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's lineage is a natural flow for me. Why? Bhakti.

 

The path of Sri Gauranga, honors the Holy Name, as Jesus taught...and expands fresh realization about God beyond the veil. Krsna consciousness is a progression of that choice I made as a 12 year old boy.

 

Some christians may disagree, as will some Gaudiya Vaisnavas. But this has been my experiential walk toward God. And bhakti has been the centre.

[bija]

There is no need for me to say both traditions are the same, as some preachers choose to do. Rather it has been a progressive journey. And you are right Theist, the innermost intimate portion of my being.

 

In fact I think it is healthy to point the differences out between the two traditions.

 

Postive and progressive life. Onward.

[Amlesh]

:confused:???????Where is Dark Warrior????????:confused:

[bija]

 

:confused:???????Where is Dark Warrior????????:confused:

Yeah baby...

 

Come on dark...we are waiting:).

Maybe he is not home yet Amlesh lol. I best get ready lol. And load google:idea:. Goodness me....

 

It's a christian thread:(!!!!

[Amlesh]

In these issues, he has a lot of ammunitions.

[theist]

 

There is no need for me to say both traditions are the same, as some preachers choose to do. Rather it has been a progressive journey. And you are right Theist, the innermost intimate portion of my being.

 

In fact I think it is healthy to point the differences out between the two traditions.

 

Postive and progressive life. Onward.

 

There will always be differences in traditions due to considerations of time place and circumstance. I view this as the lesser side of the subject. Take prayer for example. The Muslims traditionally hold their arms out with palms up as they pray. Christians and Hindus traditionally fold their palms. Some people stretch their arms out high to heaven and turn their faces upward also. Differences in form and tradition.

 

But what are the import of these differences compared to that which is the same about offering prayers? In all cases it is a jiva soul turning to God.

 

Within prayer there is also differnces in motivation. Four types of people turn to Krishna but we see these four types all within the same religion. And what's more I see these differences even within myself. So far all my prayers have been material motivated including the desire for salvation from birth and death. So how can I mock a Christian Hindu or Muslim for praying with the same motivations? We may have a more explict understanding of the need to pray without motivation but how many of us are there that offer pure prayers to Krishna?

 

Considering these things why should I even bother over the traditional differences in peoples modes of prayer. The same advice is always applicable to people of all religions and that is to pray more mindfully, pray more often and pray more with pure intent and not for things material.

[bija]

 

In these issues, he has a lot of ammunitions.

Looking forward to it.:ponder:I haven't picked up the bible in years you know. The old testament was a hard old slog of a read. They had lots of ammunitions back then too them old jews - the only way thinkers. Boy...

 

Got severally bible bashed by a Seventh Day Adventist saturday night. Talk about packin' ammo...they train em' up well. Funny thing is he used to be a Hare Krsna, and when he found the truth he burnt his Srimad Bhagavatam set:crying2:. Shame.

 

The American Religion is surely a strange thing. These sects all survived when Jesus didn't come back in 1844 or there abouts. Paramahamsa Yogananda was closer to the truth when he said ' the second coming of christ - the resurrection of christ within you'.

 

But I must say the Book of Mormon was a good read...but like many it proclaims the only way...and all else are counterfeit. A book of dogma - even if inspirational. Jospeh Smith is a man I would like to meet - and ask him why - maybe he was a mystic visionary. American Religion .

 

 

In Whose God Do We Trust? <nyt_byline type="books" version="1.0"> By JAY P. DOLAN

 

</nyt_byline> <nyt_bookdetail type="books" version="1.0"> </nyt_bookdetail>

<table vspace="12" width="165" align="right" border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr><td width="2">

</td> <td valign="top" width="163" align="left" bgcolor="#cccc99"> <hr size="3" noshade="noshade"> THE AMERICAN RELIGION

The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation.

By Harold Bloom.

<hr size="1" noshade="noshade"> </td></tr></tbody></table> uring the 19th century, Americans were obsessed with religion. Evangelical Protestantism shaped the soul of the nation, but on the fringes of society many new denominations emerged, under the leadership of such visionaries as Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) and Ellen White (Seventh-day Adventism). Today religion still preoccupies Americans; as many as 1,200 different denominations and sects compete for people's allegiance.

Despite such diversity, there is a common religion, based on shared values, binding the American people together. Some call it civil religion, others public religion; still others describe it as cultural religion. However they label it, interpreters of American religion agree that in addition to the "manyness of religion," as the historian Catherine Albanese put it, there exists a "oneness of religion." In the title of his latest book, Harold Bloom calls this oneness "The American Religion," and he argues that "the American Religion, which is so prevalent among us, masks itself as Protestant Christianity yet has ceased to be Christian."

Bloom, a noted literary critic who teaches at Yale University and New York University, sets out here to examine the soul of America. As he explains it, he wants "to identify our national faith, to interpret its mode of spirituality and to prophesy its future." He calls this effort an experiment in "religious criticism, a mode of description, analysis and judgment that seeks to bring us closer to the workings of the religious imagination." The way he achieves this is by analyzing the sacred texts of several denominations and explaining how each denomination shapes the soul of the nation. The end result is a novel analysis of the American soul.

Bloom's attention is directed in particular toward the Mormons and the Southern Baptists, because he judges that their emphasis on the individual makes them the most American of the nation's religions. He is especially sympathetic toward Joseph Smith, whom he calls an "authentic religious genius," a person whose "religion-making imagination" is, in Bloom's opinion, unsurpassed in American history. His treatment of the Southern Baptists, who in their present state of internecine warfare represent the dark side of the American Religion, is insightful and pungent. The other American-made phenomena he analyzes are Seventh-day Adventism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostalism, the New Age movement and African-American religion.

Bloom is least sympathetic toward the New Age high priests, whose prose, he believes, is not much more than "blissful vacuity." Jehovah's Witnesses scare him because of what he calls their "theocratic fascism," and his analysis of the Adventists and the Christian Scientists is the weakest part of the book. As for African-American religion, he believes that its emphasis on the search for individual freedom offers a paradigm for all Americans as they seek to find freedom for the self in the midst of community.

For Bloom the American Religion is a national faith that shapes the way we think and act, whether we realize it or not. He defines it as a "religion of the self," one that is "irretrievably Gnostic." In other words, "it is a knowing, by and of an uncreated self, or self-within-the-self, and the knowledge leads to freedom." This religion is experiential in nature, celebrates knowing rather than believing, and achieves freedom in solitude. The key is that Bloom's "self" has a divine spark within it.

 

This sounds very much like Ralph Waldo Emerson's transcendental faith, in which the religious sentiment in the individual deifies the human. Bloom does indeed acknowledge that Emerson is the theologian of the American Religion, and it is clear that Emerson's transcendentalism has shaped Bloom's interpretation of religion. This is the type of religion he finds in the sacred texts he analyzes. He rightly concludes that this religion is not Christian, but he also suggests that it is a national faith that shapes the beliefs of Americans. That conclusion is less plausible.

EMPHASIS on the individual is a trait of American culture that has long been recognized. Tocqueville noticed it in the 1830's, and contemporary sociologists continually remind us about the dominance of individualism in our society. Bloom has taken this characteristic of American culture and transformed it into a Gnostic self; then he says that this is a religion. He is correct in emphasizing the importance of the individual in the American religious pantheon, but he is off the mark when he elevates that to a national religion.

Religion is more than just knowing. It is also believing in the transcendent, the divine, and acting on belief. Religion also involves ritual and worship -- as every Muslim, Christian and Jew knows. In studying the American-made religions, Bloom focuses on the creeds of these denominations and ends up emphasizing knowledge, or the content of these creeds. In neglecting to analyze the cult and ethical code of these religions, he overlooks an essential quality of religion: belief and the acting out of that belief. Each of the religions he studies has an elaborate cult and code, as well as a creed, and no religion can be fully appreciated unless all three aspects are understood.

In the final section of the book, Bloom turns from religious criticism to religious prophecy. He believes that the Mormons and Southern Baptists, who now make up only about 10 percent of the American population, will eventually overtake much of the country. This could occur as soon as the year 2000, he says, when we might wake up to discover that under the leadership of the Republican Party the United States has a nationally established religion. Regrettably, this will be only a parody of the true American religion that Emerson, Joseph Smith and others imagined.

That's the gospel according to Harold Bloom. To believe it requires more than an act of faith.

Jay P. Dolan, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, is writing a book on the relationship between Roman Catholicism and American culture.

 

Return to the Books Home Page

The American Religion by Harold Bloom was a good ol' read. I was a Mormon priest for one year Amlesh - it was a wonderful social experiment. I am grateful - they wont excommunicate me - in their eyes I am a Mormon still. Oh well....

 

I would love to meet Joesph Smith...what a dude!

[theist]

Gotta say I was hoping we could give some time to the words of Christ and ignore all the secular stuff for once.

[bija]

Sure Theist...just havin fun. The above article touches on the inner religion a little:).

[krsna]

 

Gotta say I was hoping we could give some time to the words of Christ and ignore all the secular stuff for once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top><TABLE class=contentpaneopen cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="70%"></TD><TD vAlign=top align=right></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>

 

 

 

 

 

Finding Shelter From The Heavy Burden of Sin

 

 

 

 

and are heavy laden,

 

 

and I will give you rest.

Take My yoke upon you

and learn from Me,

for I am gentle and lowly in heart,

and you will find rest for your souls.

For My yoke is easy

and My burden is light."

Matt 11:28-30

 

 

Come to Me, all you who labor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[bija]

 

Sure Theist...just havin fun. The above article touches on the inner religion a little:). bija

 

When he was alone, the Twelve, together with the others who formed his company (like minded sangha) asked what the parables meant. He told them. 'To you is granted the secret of the kingdom of God, but to those who are outside everything comes in parables,

 

so that they may look and look,

but never perceive;

listen and listen, but never understand;

to avoid changing their ways and being healed'.

 

Mark 4 10-12